Make me an evolutionist

[random_guy]

The past can only be known by using hystoricial methods.
We must look at what can be demonstrated with scientific method to come to a more solid explanation of what is more possible.

So the past can only be examined by yelling and shouting?

J/K, Are you aware that archeologist, criminology, paleontology all study historical past and that they use the scientific method to do so?

 

[Shadowseldil]

Theory: something which seems to be true, but has not undergone enough testing to be proven true.
Law: something which can indelibly be proven true, or has been tested often enough with the same results that, while not conclusive, is generally considered to be fact and thus is agreed to be true.

Evolution is still in "theory" status, and gravity is in "law" status. Granted, there is more than that to gravity, but this is a simplistic view which remain accurate.

So, if there is so much proof for evolution, why is it still a theory? (Yes, I know there are scientist who would like to make it a "law" status, but they are considered zealots even by there evolutionary compatriots.)

Here I must stop, I have to get ready for work. College bills and all.

One more thing. I am but one man. Please wait for me to be able to post my responce. I may answer your question before you ask it.

 

[revolutio]

Theory: something which seems to be true, but has not undergone enough testing to be proven true.
Law: something which can indelibly be proven true, or has been tested often enough with the same results that, while not conclusive, is generally considered to be fact and thus is agreed to be true.

Evolution is still in "theory" status, and gravity is in "law" status. Granted, there is more than that to gravity, but this is a simplistic view which remain accurate.

So, if there is so much proof for evolution, why is it still a theory? (Yes, I know there are scientist who would like to make it a "law" status, but they are considered zealots even by there evolutionary compatriots.)

Read my post. You appear to have some misconceptions about what evolution is. And once again please read the quiet thread, alot of your questions which are quite common are addressed there.

 

[nvxplorer]

Theory: something which seems to be true, but has not undergone enough testing to be proven true.

Theory; a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

 

[random_guy]

Theory: something which seems to be true, but has not undergone enough testing to be proven true.
Law: something which can indelibly be proven true, or has been tested often enough with the same results that, while not conclusive, is generally considered to be fact and thus is agreed to be true.

Evolution is still in "theory" status, and gravity is in "law" status. Granted, there is more than that to gravity, but this is a simplistic view which remain accurate.

So, if there is so much proof for evolution, why is it still a theory? (Yes, I know there are scientist who would like to make it a "law" status, but they are considered zealots even by there evolutionary compatriots.)

Here I must stop, I have to get ready for work. College bills and all.

I'm still going to say that you don't understand science at all and the fact that you plan to be a doctor and be so arrogant to assume so makes me pretty scared.

Theories are not promoted to Laws. Most laws are mathematical formulas describing an observation. Laws do not mean they're 100% correct. The Law of Gravity (math formula) isn't 100% correct at certain times (something to do with huge masses or something). There's 3 things with gravity, gravity (observation that things fall down), ToG (why things fall down), LoG (math formula explaining it).

Theories are was every scientist wants.

 

[McCracAttack]

Theory: something which seems to be true, but has not undergone enough testing to be proven true.

No that's a hypothesis. A theory is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Law: something which can indelibly be proven true, or has been tested often enough with the same results that, while not conclusive, is generally considered to be fact and thus is agreed to be true.

Evolution is still in "theory" status, and gravity is in "law" status. Granted, there is more than that to gravity, but this is a simplistic view which remain accurate.

So, if there is so much proof for evolution, why is it still a theory? (Yes, I know there are scientist who would like to make it a "law" status, but they are considered zealots even by there evolutionary compatriots.)

I believe this website said it best: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

 

[notto]

Evolution is still in "theory" status, and gravity is in "law" status. Granted, there is more than that to gravity, but this is a simplistic view which remain accurate.

What causes gravitational attraction? The theory of gravity attempts to answer it, the law of gravity is a mathematical relationship of its effects.

Just like we can use math to explain reproduction and genetics but the theory of evolution explains why we see the diversification of life that we can explain with mathematics.

You need to understand this specific point and understand why suggesting that because evolution is a theory it is not valid and a rather uninteresting attempt to discredit something that only makes sure to the reader that you don't understand how science works or what the theory of evolution explains.

 

[HRE]

Theory: something which seems to be true, but has not undergone enough testing to be proven true.

Like the Germ Theory of Disease?

For all your arrogance and bravado, you have shown nothing. You appear to be a lying egolomaniac who is getting his kicks trying to enforce his view of martial law on a thread that he quite simply does not control.

I love this bit:

Creationist: The problem is, scientists have tryed for years to do that and have not been able to. That is why the THEORY of evolution is a philosophy, not science.

Evolutionist: The same must be true for the THEORY of gravity.

Shadowseldid: Now, explain your point, Drunken Wrestler, or leave!

Hmmm...bias a bit?

 

[Split Rock]

Random-guy, you sound more like a creationist than an evolutionist. For I cannot see God, yet I can see the effects of a God. No, not creation, as you may be thinking(even though I think it is proof of God), but morality. Good and evil are proofs for God, not evolution.
Anyway, you say I should believe in evolution because I believe in gravity, even though I cannot "see" gravity. This is more reason for me to believe in God.

Good and evil are not "proof" of any God, let alone yours. You seem to be under the impression that your choice is either God or evolution. This is a false dichotomy propagated by Creationists who want to force people to reject science that they find offensive because of their narrow-minded beliefs.

And you claim there is more proof for evolution than gravity? Whence the proof?

Proof is for mathematics and alcohol, not science.

Oh, and one more thing. I need not convincing of microevolution or speciation, or even of natural selection. But those are not proof of macroevolution, or what has been referred to as molecules-to-man evolution. You can have the first without the last.

The only ones who refer to "molecules-to-man" evolution are creationists.

I want you to prove to me the last, and tell me why I should become an evolutionist.

What is an "evolutionist?" The majority of scientists accept evolutionary theory as the best explanation for the diversity and distribution of life on earth. It is not a belief or religion, despite what Creationists claim.

 

[Asimov]

This thread is hilarious!!!

 

[Dr.GH]

I won't undertake to teach an entire area, and the philosophy of science and evolutionary biology have already been moved as central to this thread.

Regarding evolution, a reduced set of material has been prepared by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., 29+ [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/evidences.html"]Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent"[/url] with a particular focus on communicating with creationists.

What we could do is discuss what you have read from Dr. Theobald's material.

I know all about theories in science, and all sorts of science terms. Do not think me your average simpliton. I have genius-status IQ and was for a time pursuing a career as a doctor.

PS: Oh, I was a professor of medicine, and I learned over thirty years ago that beer was a good cure for genius.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

back to the OP.
i second the poster who linked to HERV's confirming the existing clades.
plus i'd offer the GLO pseudogene and the 2nd centrosome and the backwards telomeres in the human 2 gene demonstrating that it is a combined 2q+2p chimp chromosome.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

 

[gluadys]

There are three things I am looking for. First, you must tell me why evolution is right.

Evolution is very probably right because it is the most comprehensive and coherent explanation for a wide range of biological phenomena. New evidence will likely mean at most minor tinkering with some points of the theory, not a rejection of it. See slingshot/automobile analogy above.

Even a major paradigm shift would probably incorporate the theory of evolution into a more comprehensive theory, much as most aspects of Newton's physics were incorporated into the more comprehensive theories of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Evolution is thoroughly integrated into the practical sciences such as medecine, agriculture and genetic engineering. That would not be possible if there were serious flaws in the theory.

Even the philosophical opponents of evolution such as creationism and IDism incorporate most of the theory of evolution into their paradigms. There are only a few subtle points of difference between modern creationism and the theory of evolution. (How subtle is obfuscated by the misrepresentation of the theory of evolution in much creationist/ID literature.)

So evolution is not going to go away soon, if ever.

Second, you must back up your claims with proof.

Science does not deal in proof. It deals in evidence.

However, before presenting evidence, I would like to be sure you know what the theory of evolution is as biologists understand it.

Very often people who ask for evidence of evolution do not understand the significance of the evidence presented. For example, presented with an experiment that demonstrates speciation in fruit flies, they usually respond with "But they are still fruit flies!" Their vision of evolution is inconsistent with the actual scientific theory of evolution, so they do not appreciate the significance of the evidence.

So show me first that you can clearly enunciate the theory of evolution, and then we can look at evidence.

Thrid, you must convince me as to why I should want to become an evolutionist.
The floor is yours.

I don't think it is particularly important that you want to become an evolutionist. I do think it is important that you want to know the truth. Once you know the truth, the next question is whether you are willing to accept it. If so, you will then be an evolutionist.

 

[Aeothen]

The origional question is , can you make him an evolutionist by any means using real science?

I can't have been the only one who saw this and immediately pictured a laboratory, complete with Jacob's ladders and foaming beakers, in which the OP was strapped to a surgical chair. A mad, cackling evolutionist jolts electricity, strange chemicals, and arcane surgical techniques before exclaiming triumphantly 'I have done it! I have created an evolutionist through the power of Science!'

Or maybe not...

To stay even slightly on topic, I'd suggest that you remember evolution != athiesim. The majority of people who accept evolution are christian (or theists of other faiths.)

 

[GodsSamus]

The same must be true for the THEORY of gravity.

Gravity has been TESTED, DEMONSTRATED, AND OBSERVED. MacroEvolution has not been tested without making some excuse, demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, OR observed. All we see are variations, which is NOT macroevolution.

 

[Aeothen]

Gravity has been TESTED, DEMONSTRATED, AND OBSERVED. MacroEvolution has not been tested without making some excuse, demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, OR observed. All we see are variations, which is NOT macroevolution.

Tell me something, where's the line between variation and speciation? What makes it possible for mutation to cause variation within a population, but prevents the exact same effector from causing different populations to speciate from one another?

 

[random_guy]

Gravity has been TESTED, DEMONSTRATED, AND OBSERVED. MacroEvolution has not been tested without making some excuse, demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, OR observed. All we see are variations, which is NOT macroevolution.

So we've observed gravitons and the bending of space-time?

 

[gluadys]

The problem is, scientists have tryed for years to do that and have not been able to.
That is why the THEORY of evolution is a philosophy, not science.

Actually, scientists haven't tried for years to prove your theory of evolution, since that was falsified long ago.

But they have had no problem working with the scientific theory of evolution.

Maybe its time you stopped beating the strawman of the creationist theory of evolution and learned what the biological theory of evolution is really about.

 

[mikeynov]

Gravity has been TESTED, DEMONSTRATED, AND OBSERVED. MacroEvolution has not been tested without making some excuse, demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, OR observed. All we see are variations, which is NOT macroevolution.

Speciation is macroevolution by definition. You've been told this, and still ignore it.

Suggesting otherwise at this point makes you a liar. So stop lying - your God wouldn't appreciate it.

 

[gluadys]

Gravity has been TESTED, DEMONSTRATED, AND OBSERVED. MacroEvolution has not been tested without making some excuse, demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, OR observed. All we see are variations, which is NOT macroevolution.

Macro-evolution is also variations---accumulated variations along several species lineages.